Over the past month, protesters in Hong Kong have succeeded, despite Beijingâ€™s best efforts, in creating and sustaining an unprecedented movement for democratic reform. Yet Hong Kong is unlikely to be feature much in President Obamaâ€™s trip to China this week. The tripâ€™s primary purpose, after all, is economic: this year, Beijing plays host to the APEC Summit, an important gathering of trading leaders from across the Asia-Pacific region. Moreover, the Obama administration has raised the Hong Kong issue privately several times over the past few months, and the President offered a mild public rebuke on his first day in Beijing.

But the message was clear: Hong Kong, and democracy more generally, is peripheral rather than central to U.S.-China relations. By stopping there, the Obama administration risks missing what may turn out to be a landmark moment for Chinese politics. The gripping authoritarianism that seemed to define Xiâ€™s China now promises to give rise to the countryâ€™s most important political movement in decades. Washington should go out on a limb, and press Beijing openly and consistently to allow universal suffrage and free elections in Hong Kong.

To be sure, doing so entails significant costs, and threatens to reverse some of the progress made in U.S.â€“China relations in recent years. Specifically, U.S. officials have recently softened their once-regular condemnations of Chinaâ€™s anti-democratic stance, as economic and security challenges have assumed greater importance, and both sides have come to the conclusion that little can be gained from further discussion on democracy and human rights. At the same time, China has made clear that it will tolerate no criticism regarding Hong Kong, which it regards as a purely internal matter. Any perceived American attempt to interfere with Beijingâ€™s handling of the Hong Kong protests is likely to provoke a furious reaction from the Chinese government. But this time, it is worth the risk. The United States must stand up for democracy in Hong Kong by making the issue a central one in U.S.-China relations.

Hong Kongâ€™s protests, which began in late September and have continued, despite Beijingâ€™s best efforts, are of unprecedented significance both for the territory and the mainland itself. Instead of seeking to protect freedoms already enjoyed under their city-stateâ€™s special political status, as they had in the past, Hong Kongers have marched, chanted, and occupied to expand their political rights â€“ specifically, to vote in free and open elections for Hong Kongâ€™s Chief Executive. Hong Kongâ€™s leaders are chosen indirectly, by a body composed primarily of economic elites, and whose appointment Beijing essentially controls. Surrendering such power to the masses, even in Hong Kong, is beyond the pale for the Chinese Communist Party. Yet Hong Kongâ€™s demand for democracy has resonated in other parts of China: last week, Taiwanese leader Ma Ying-jeou linked the territoryâ€™s democratic movement with its own, expressing support for the protesters before adding that if Beijing itself were to embrace democratic reforms, Taiwan may well accept eventual reunification with the mainland.

This resonance creates an unsustainable tension, for it suggests that Hong Kong will not be the last large-scale civil protest that Beijing will have to confront. Beijing was betting that appeals to preserve Hong Kongâ€™s reputation for stability and free enterprise rather than free-wheeling politics would prevent large-scale demonstrations, or at least marginalize protest leaders. In this it badly erred and in the process betrayed the error of the basic calculation that economic growth will neutralize calls for political reform. The territoryâ€™s widespread civil disobedience showed mainland China and the world that prosperity is no substitute for democracy, and that civic culture cannot survive by GDP growth alone. Although it may take quite a while, sooner or later Hong Kong-style protests will come to the mainland. Indeed, Hong Kong says much about how Beijing will respond to future calls for democratic reform: there will be no more Tiananmens, but there will be no compromise on the fundamentals, either.

Paradoxically, this tension also opens a window for Washington to engage the Chinese government on political reform. Even as Beijing is clearly in need of fresh thinking on the issue, Chinese President Xi Jinping, widely thought to be the most powerful leader since at least Deng Xiaoping, if not Mao himself, has appeared sincere in his pursuit of some important reforms, including upholding Chinaâ€™s constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, among other basic rights. Given this combination of threat and opportunity, Beijing may well be receptive to a tactful attempt to re-engage on issues related to political reform.

Giving support to Hong Kongâ€™s protesters while attempting to constructively engage Beijing will require delicate diplomacy, but itâ€™s worth the effort. Ignoring the Hong Kong protests, on the other hand, as the Obama administration appears ready to do, risks sacrificing long-term strategic goals for short-term tactical wins. Whatever the direct outcome of last monthâ€™s civil disobedience, one thing is clear: we have seen the future of democratic protest in China, not just in Hong Kong, but on the mainland as well. For the United States, Hong Kongâ€™s protests should solidify its resolve to promote democratic movements around the world, and President Obama must take that message to Beijingâ€”not only this week, but for the remainder of his presidency.

Scott Moore is a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow and a Research Associate at the Harvard Belfer Center on Science and International Affairs, where he specializes in Chinese politics.

The Communist Party of China will not abdicate their unquestioned right over the resources and citizens of the country. Notwithstanding, the codswallop about it being a Peoples' Republic, it is not so since the power and pelf is totally the privilege of the select band of Chinese Communist who rule the country. Questioned Power is a more heady elixir that is more powerful than the Opium that has seized the minds of China during the Opium War. And pelf is something that Chinese are addicted to, if one sees the greed for money over ethics of even common Mainland Chinese and surely same is applicable to the Communist leaders. Mor so, since they are practically immune to law, which in any case is subject to the dictation of the CPC.

The Mainland Chinese have no experience of living in the freedom of Democracy; not that democracy is perfect. Yet, democracy at least guarantees one from the evils of mind control, and ensures a free and fair justice system to right the wrongs of the citizen and the State.

But then these are alien to the Chinese since they are groomed to obey by the "Theory of Legalism", where the State is accepted as the maibaap of the citizens. So, even the Mainland citizens of China will baulk at any change. The Chinese are very suspicious and averse to change, except when the maibaap i.e. the CPC orders such a change.

That is why the Chinese posters out here defend the indefensible or obfuscate to confuse and go tangential into the irrelevant.The concept - the State can do no wrong.

Hong Kong is a different kettle of fish. The citizens under the British did not have democracy in its unequivocal terms. But they had guaranteed individual rights and a free and fair justice system. Therefore, the had breathed the free air of democratic norms, even if they did not govern themselves. This is the freedom that the Mainland Chinese cannot understand.

Hence, none can advise or assist the Chinese Communist Party to allow democracy to flourish in China.

The CPC will not abdicate their supreme control of the mind and soul of the Mainland Chinese to lose the unbridled power, pelf and privileges they enjoy in a most undemocratic and authoritarian manner.

The territoryâ€™s widespread civil disobedience showed mainland China and the world that prosperity is no substitute for democracy, and that civic culture cannot survive by GDP growth alone.

Click to expand...

This is a bogus claim cranked up by the US ideologues that is hopeless flawed.

When Hong Kong was under the British, was there democracy, beyond the guarantee of individual rights and a free and fair justice system?

No.

It was merely engined by GDP then.

If it could for so long a period in history sustain itself merely on its GDP and civic culture then, how come the same does not apply now?

Giving support to Hong Kongâ€™s protesters while attempting to constructively engage Beijing will require delicate diplomacy, but itâ€™s worth the effort. Ignoring the Hong Kong protests, on the other hand, as the Obama administration appears ready to do, risks sacrificing long-term strategic goals for short-term tactical wins.

Click to expand...

What is ignoring the Hong Kong protest?

What exactly can the Obama administration do?

The only way to ensure that democracy comes to China is by doing another Iraq with the same clarion cry - Freedom and Democracy.

Can the US replicate Iraq?

Why day dream and blame Obama (not that he is someone who enthuses anyone).

Ask those who are actually living there, I guarantee that they prefer a Iraq under the dictator saddam hussein.

Click to expand...

oh common,how can u compare yourself with those Middle east muslim savages
But u can't stop democracy it ignited mini fire in HK and it will spread to mainland.But i really believe democracy will make China a great nation. :thumb: